| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1663 2023 CLD 559 2023 SLD 1663 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 409-L of 2021, decided on 10th March, 2023. (Against the judgment dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in S.T.A. No.13/2005) Date of hearing: 20th February, 2023.
JUDGMENT ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J.---This Regular First Appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance) has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.8.2020 passed by learned Judge Ban
Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court (through Video Link from Lahore) for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Civil Petition No. 409-L of 2021, decided on 10th March, 2023. (Against the judgment dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in S.T.A. No.13/2005) Date of hearing: 20th February, 2023.
JUDGMENT ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J.---This Regular First Appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance) has been filed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.8.2020 passed by learned Judge Ban
Ch. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court (through Video Link from Lahore) for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
The COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, LAHORE---Petitioner
VERSUS
Messrs QADBROS ENGINEERING (PVT.) LTD., LAHORE---Respondent
Law: Companies Act, 2017
Section: 2(68)
Law: Companies Ordinance, 1984
Section: 2(38),3
Law: Sales Tax Act, 1990
Section: 7
(a) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)--- ----S. 2(68)---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 2(38) 3 [since repealed]---Sister concern---Meaning and definition---No definition of sister concern is provided either in the repealed Companies Ordinance, 1984 or the present Companies Act, 2017, but this turn of phrase basically delineates two or more distinct businesses or ventures owned by one and the same conglomerate but such undertakings/concerns do not have any link or nexus with the operations of each others business with the exception of conjoint ownership but legally or financially are not related to each other despite its affiliation with another company with a separate identity and workforces. (b) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)--- ----S. 2(68)---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 2(38) 3 [since repealed]--- Subsidiary and wholly-owned subsidiary---Definition provided. Palmers Company Law (2019 Edition), Volume 3, paragraph 9.303, page 9246; Halsburys Laws of England (Fifth Edition), Volume 14 (pages 54-55) and C.R. Datta (Seventh Edition), Volume I, Chapter I (Page 1382-1383) ref. (c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----S. 7---Input tax---Company securing input adjustment of sales tax on purchases made from its alleged subsidiary/sister concern---Subsidiary/sister concern relationship---Not proved---Tax department completely failed to establish that respondent-company was the sister concern or a subsidiary company of the supplier-company---No tangible evidence was produced including the record, if any, obtained from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) in relation to the incorporation and substratum of both the companies together with the verification of holding company of the alleged subsidiary company---Tribunal had judiciously examined the pith and substance of the transaction and then rightly reached the conclusion that the respondent-company was not a subsidiary or holding company of the supplier-company---Furthermore if the supplier issued invoices erroneously or in violation of law then the Department should have initiated legal action for recovery against them rather than the buyer (respondent) which was not the sister concern…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492